[Ballot discuss]The Gen-ART Review on 10 Oct 2008 by Suresh Krishnan raised a concern that was labelled "major." This concern deserves a respons, but it has not received one. Suresh says that this draft assumes some kind of ordering requirement between namespaces. Suresh is concerned with this portion of the text: > > Thus, a message (or a call) with the following Resource-Priority > header value: > > dsn-000001.8 > > for example, MUST NOT ever receive preferential treatment over a > message, for example, with this Resource-Priority header value: > > dsn-000010.0 > > because they are two difference namespaces ... > Suresh asks you to consider an RP actor that supports both the namespaces, dsn-000001 and dsn-000010. It could maintain an ordered list which contains:

dsn-000001.9 dsn-000001.8 dsn-000010.9 ... dsn-000010.0

and this is a valid priority order according to section 8.2 of RFC4412. Given this, why would this be considered invalid behavior if dsn-000001.8 DID receive preferential treatment over dsn-000010.0?

2008-10-19

04

Russ Housley

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley

2008-10-17

04

Cullen Jennings

State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Cullen Jennings

2008-10-17

04

Cullen Jennings

Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-10-23 by Cullen Jennings

2008-10-17

04

Cullen Jennings

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings

2008-10-17

04

Cullen Jennings

Ballot has been issued by Cullen Jennings

2008-10-17

04

Cullen Jennings

Created "Approve" ballot

2008-10-02

04

(System)

State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system

2008-09-30

04

Amanda Baber

IANA Last Call comments:

Action 1 (Section 3.1):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignmentsin the "Resource-Priority Namespaces" registry ...

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Keith Drage

The document has been reviewed and is ready for forwarding to IESG for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

Document history:

- draft-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces-00 was submitted 26th February 2007 and expired 26th August 2007.- draft-polk-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01 was submitted 9th July 2007 and expired 9th January 2008.- draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-00 was submitted 16th October 2007 and expired 16th April 2008.- draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-01.txt was submitted 19th November 2007 and expired 17th May 2008.- draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-02.txt was submitted 21st February 2008 and expires 21st August 2008.- draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03.txt was submitted 10th March 2008 and expires 10th September 2008.

WGLC was initiated in the SIP WG on draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-00 on 31st October 2007 with comments requested by 14th November 2007.

Review was made and comments were received from: Janet Gunn, Joel Halpern, John Rosenberg, Henning Schulzrinne, Hannes Tschofenig, Dean Willis. During the course of the work comments have also been made by: Janet Gunn, Dale Worley.

The main reason for the document is to create the IANA namespaces, but in the process of doing this it also requires one very small update to RFC 4412 in order to create the OPTIONAL delimiter, which would be opaque to implementers otherwise, and potentially causing implementations to not process the header (therefore message) correctly.

One of the issues in the WGLC was the number of namespaces generated, which apparently contravenes RFC 4412 which essentially says that one should reuse existing namespaces if they are applicable, rather than going away and generating lots of new ones. There is text in section 1 of the document justifying this large allocation.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML?

The document has received review from a number of people whose interests lie in this particular field, in addition to the normal WG responses.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue.

The document shepherd has no concerns with this document.

There have been no IPR disclosures on this document.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

The document addresses a limited part of the SIP community, but is of significant interest in that part of the community. Within that limited community, there is strong consensus behind the document.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.)

None indicated.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (Seehttp://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html andhttp://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The document has been reviewed against the guidelines in RFC 4485 and it is believed that the document is conformant with those guidelines.

For ID-NITS the checks against idnits 2.08.10 report no NITS found except:

== It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 7 pages

which is a common fault which can be resolved readily during publication.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document contains only normative references. These references are both standards track documents, are published and have been verified to be normative references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The main purpose of this document is to create additional entries in an existing IANA registry. The registry additions are clearly identified. The registry requirements for this existing registry is standards track required, which this document is.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker?

The document contains no material written in a formal language, and as such there are no validation requirements.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

Technical summary.

This document creates additional Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Resource-Priority namespaces to meet the requirements of the US Defense Information Systems Agency, and places these namespaces in the IANA registry.

Working group summary.

There is consensus in the working group to publish this document.

Document Quality

The document has received review by experts in the field as well as members of the SIP working group.

Personnel

The document shepherd for this document was Keith Drage. The responsible Area Director was Cullen Jennings. The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.